NOW COME Jere R. Beckman, et als, Plaintiffs in the above-entitled action, and by their attorney, state as follows:

1. The allegations of paragraph 1 are admitted.

2. The allegations of paragraph 2 are denied. Plaintiffs were not quoting the statute but the statement of legislative intent. Plaintiffs do not understand, in any case, that there is any meaningful distinction between "issues" and "any issues".

3. In response to the allegations of paragraph 3, the legislative history speaks for itself. Defendants' reference to the records is a personal comment/question by the Chairman of the House Committee. The overall testimony clearly shows the limited purpose of the legislation.

4. The allegations of paragraphs 4 and 5 are denied.

5. In answer to the allegations of paragraph 6 Plaintiffs state that the items mentioned (and the exhibits to Defendants' Memorandum) are not part of the record, were not offered by Defendants at the time. of the hearing, are not now admissible and in any case would be irrelevant to the issues before the Court.

AND FURTHER ANSWERING, the Plaintiffs says:

6. That Defendants have raised no new issues in their Motion.

7. That there is no allegation that the Court's decision is contrary to law or an abuse of discretion.

8. There is no appropriate basis for reconsideration alleged.

9. Plaintiffs believe, however, that the Court did err, as a matter of law, in ruling that HB 111 did not limit the length of a bond passed at the meeting to March 31, 2000.

10. The legislative history in this regard is overwhelming that the Bill was specifically designed to deal with short term borrowing.

11. The Defendants relied entirely on HB 111 as the basis for their action not only for the authority to call a special meeting without Superior Court approval but also for their authority to authorize a bond (see paragraph 16 of Defendants' Answer).

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs pray:

a. That Defendants' Motion to Reconsider be denied.

b. That Plaintiffs; Motion to Reconsider be granted.

c. That the Court rule that the vote of the district meeting of November 16, 1999 was invalid not only for failure to meet the fifty percent voter requirement but also for authorizing a bond obligation that will mature beyond March 31, 2000.

d. For such other and further relief as may be just.

Dated this 10th day of January, 2000.

Respectfully submitted,

JERE R. BECKMAN, ET ALS
By Their Attorney
[signed]
ANTHONY A. McMANUS, ESQUIRE

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
COUNTY OF STRAFFORD, SS.

On this 10th day of January, 2000, I hereby certify that a copy of the within has been mailed to Gordon B. Graham, Esquire, 220 Main Street, Salem, NH 03079.

[signed]
ANTHONY A. McMANUS, ESQUIRE

Last update on 13-Jan-00 at 11:23 PM.

file:///MinnieMouse/Desktop%20Folder/answer.html

This page is edited by David K. Taylor. Please send questions or comments to editor@orol.org.